Does anyone have any thoughts on how this will affect DirecTV customers? Apparently, AT&T has said that existing customers can keep their pricing for three years, but it all seems very cloudy beyond that. I am a very, very happy DirecTV customer who lives in an area where there is no cable or broadband available. The local phone/dsl providers are Centurylink and Verizon, and ATT has no area anywhere near me where they offer broadband or TV. I know from my family, who are ATT wireless customers, that ATT also gets zero bars of cell phone signal at my house as well. Could/would they force me to bundle services that I cannot access in the future in order to keep my TV? Scares me a bit.
I had AT&T Uverse before I moved and I loved it. I have DirectTV now and like it a lot. I'm in the same boat as you as I live in an area where there is no cable companies to deliver cable where I live. You have to have a dish or get nothing.
Its really hard to say what exactly will happen at this point. It will most likely take about a year for the deal to be approved.
How it will affect customers: prices will go up because there will be less competition. U-Verse customers will probably get access to most of DirecTV's content, sans NFL Sunday Ticket. DirecTV customers, well... you'll probably get to buy U-Verse phone and internet as a bundle package now. And pay more for it. I'm pretty pessimistic about this merger. Though it wouldn't be quite as big a disaster as Comcast/TWC.
Unless the conglomeration of DirecTV and U-Verse pays up to add Sunday Ticket to U-Verse, yes. There's also a clause in the acquisition proposal that says AT&T can call it off if DirecTV fails to renew Sunday Ticket agreements with the NFL.
Do you think that they could really bring their broadband package into Verizon/Comcast monopoly areas?
Who else will you turn to for TV? Yeah, this happens, we're kind of screwed on pricing. Expect to pay more for less in the long run. I'm against regulation in general and think it's kind of silly that companies have to file for approval for mergers/acquisitions, but this is one time I'd support blocking a buyout. This and Comcast's Time Warner Cable merger should be blocked. Actually, if we could get true a la carte channel selection and streaming TV on the Internet without having to have a cable/satellite subscription first, I wouldn't even mind these buyouts. Let them happen if it means advancement in other areas. Just make sure Internet usage caps can't happen.
I get what you said, but I don't see how it answers the question... Literally, my only options for TV are DirecTV and Dish Network, and the latter is just horrible.
Well, I expect that the cost of what I curently have will go up, if for no other reason than Im "grandfathered" into an older plan with DirecTV, and pay less for the same content than a new subscriber would (not counting Sunday Ticket). I'm sure that prices will rise for that. No question. What I wonder is will AT&T somehow be able to bring their broadband service into my area since they aren't already there? I doubt it, but it would be great if they could. The current companies in my area aren't likely to bring it to me any time soon, and over paying is better than being totally denied. To my first question though, could they require "bundling" from everyone in order to get TV? Even for people who cannot get access to the other services? Would they just "cut the cord" on those of us who live outside their other zones?
Supposedly, AT&T is offering to keep prices locked in at current rates for 3 years. Not without investing millions of dollars in infrastructure in your area. They need to lay the groundwork before connecting to your home. I don't think they legally can for anticompetitive reasons. AT&T doesn't even bundle U-Verse in areas where it's just them and Comcast competing—like in my town. You can get U-Verse phone and internet separate from TV. I have DirecTV for TV and U-Verse for phone and internet. AT&T got pissy when I kept refusing the TV package, but eventually they had to relent.
